Lino v. Kellerman et al

Plaintiff: Owen Lino
Defendant: J T Ochoa, J Kellerman, J Criman, G J Janda and J Anaya
Case Number: 3:2010cv00449
Filed: February 26, 2010
Court: California Southern District Court
Office: San Diego Office
County: San Diego
Referring Judge: Jan M. Adler
Presiding Judge: Barry Ted Moskowitz
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
February 28, 2012 74 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Denying 54 Motion for Reconsideration ; Denying 61 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; Denying as Moot 65 Motion Requesting for the Court's Order for All Disposition, Exhibits, Transcripts, and Accurate Records of the Clerk; Denying 67 Motion for Permission to File this Motion to Alter, Rearrange & Reconsider the Court's Order/Judgment; Denying as Moot 70 Motion Requesting the Court's Permission to Stay Appeal; Denying 73 Motion to Appoint Counsel. It is further or dered that Plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b) and § 1915A(b) and for failing to exhaust his administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. It is further certified that an IFP Appeal from this final order of dismissal would not appear to be taken "in good faith". Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 2/28/2012. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh)
July 7, 2011 29 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER: Granting in Part and Denying in Part 26 Motion for Extension of Time to File a Fourth Amended Complaint; and Granting in Part 27 Motion for Reconsideration. It is hereby ordered that Plaintiff's Motions are granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff has 45 days leave from the date this Order is filed to file a Fourth Amended COmplaint, and it is not to exceed 45 pages. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 7/7/2011. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh)
May 20, 2011 25 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Dismissing Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiff's 23 "Motion for 3 Judge Court" is denied. Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 8 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) (b) and 1915A(b). However, Plaintiff is granted thirty days leave from the date this Order is "Filed" in which to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 5/20/11. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service. Mailed Plaintiff a form § 1983 complaint. )(jer)
July 12, 2010 10 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER: (1) Denying 5 Motion to Appoint Counsel Without Prejudice; (2) Granting In Part and Denying In Part Plaintiff's 8 Motion for Law Library Access and Copy of Court Docket; and (3) Granting 7 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has sixty (60) days leave from the date this Order is "Filed" in which to file a Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 7/12/10. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(Copy of Court's April 21, 2010 Order, Amended Complaint and exhibits, blank §1983 form complaint mailed to Plaintiff). (vet)
April 21, 2010 3 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER: (1) Granting Motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis, imposing no initial partial filing fee, garnishing $350.00 balance from Prisoner's Trust account 2 ; and (2) Dismissing Complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim pursu ant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Plaintiff is Granted forty five (45) days leave from the date this Order is "Filed" in which to file a First Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 4/21/10. (Order electronically transmitted to Matthew Cate, Secretary CDCR) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(1983 complaint form mailed to Plaintiff)(lao)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the California Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Lino v. Kellerman et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: J T Ochoa
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: J Kellerman
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: J Criman
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: G J Janda
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: J Anaya
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Owen Lino
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?